Wrongful Conviction - #444 Jason Flom with Rafael Martinez: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-enurv-1e449406 #RafaelMartinez #WarOnDrugs #CooperatingWitness #Witness #WitnessCoercion #Coercion #PleaBargain #PleaDeal #ConfidentialInformant #Misidentification #FalseNarrative #EyewitnessTestimony #Testimony #Lies #CourtroomProcedure #KangarooCourt #ExculpatoryEvidence #EvidenceSuppression #Evidence #Undead #PrisonBreak #WrongfulConviction #CriminalJustice #Law

Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states: No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO, referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to. A rational examination of the texts in question shows that: The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics. The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here. The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty. The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18): require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas. These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9). No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12). Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13). Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19). Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20). The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21). Everyone has the right to work (Article 23). Everyone has the right to education (Article 26). Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28). Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva. The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1), Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A). States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response. As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements. States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42): Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures. Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it. Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty. All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.” It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction. If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span. Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using. The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12): In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers. And Article 20 (1): …provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source. The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b). Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary. In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens. As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18): …and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO. The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended. It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool). Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding? Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates. The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022: We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…, repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration: …an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024, and by the Council of the European Union: A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect. The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain. The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies. If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent. The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign. The Need for Clarification The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs. No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day). So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

"It is obviously un-American for the government to develop a ‘hit list’ of citizens to mute in the public square through secret pressure on communications monopolies." This Country Can't Afford A SCOTUS Weak On Internet Censorship Joy Pullmann The Biden administration attempted to distract the Supreme Court from the voluminous evidence of federal abuse of Americans’ speech rights during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri Monday. It sounded like several justices followed the feds’ waving red flag. “The government may not use coercive threats to suppress speech, but it is entitled to speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers,” said Biden administration lawyer Brian Fletcher in his opening remarks. He and several justices asserted government speech prerogatives that would flip the Constitution upside down. The government doesn’t have constitutional rights. Constitutional rights belong to the people and restrain the government. The people’s right to speak may not be abridged. Government officials’ speaking, in their official capacities, may certainly be abridged. Indeed, it often must be, precisely to restrict officials from abusing the state’s monopoly on violence to bully citizens into serfdom. It is obviously un-American and unconstitutional for the government to develop a “hit list” of citizens to mute in the public square through secret pressure on communications monopolies beholden to the government for their monopoly powers. There is simply no way it’s “protected speech” for the feds to use intermediaries to silence anyone who disagrees with them on internet forums where the majority of the nation’s political organizing and information dissemination occurs. Bullying, Not the Bully Pulpit What’s happening is not government expressing its views to media, or “encouraging press to suppress their own speech,” as Justice Elena Kagan put it. This is government bullying third parties to suppress Americans’ speech that officials dislike. In the newspaper analogy, it would be like government threatening an IRS audit or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation, or pulling the business license of The Washington Post if the Post published an op-ed from Jay Bhattacharya. As Norwood v. Harrison established in 1973, that’s blatantly unconstitutional. Government cannot “induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Yet, notes Matt Taibbi, some justices and Fletcher “re-framed the outing of extravagantly funded, ongoing content-flagging programs, designed by veterans of foreign counterterrorism operations and targeting the domestic population, as a debate about what Fletcher called ‘classic bully pulpit exhortations.’” Every Fake Excuse for Censorship Is Already Illegal We have laws against all the harms the government and several justices put forth as excuses for government censorship. Terrorism is illegal. Promoting terrorism is illegal, as an incitement to treason and violence. Inciting children to injure or murder themselves by jumping out windows — a “hypothetical” brought up by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and discussed at length in oral arguments — is illegal. If someone is spreading terrorist incitements to violence on Facebook, law enforcement needs to go after the terrorist plotters, not Facebook. Just like it’s unjust to punish gun, knife, and tire iron manufacturers for the people who use their products to murder, it’s unjust and unconstitutional for government to effectively commandeer Facebook under the pretext of all the evils people use it to spread. If they have a problem with those evils, they should address those evils directly, not pressure Facebook to do what they can’t get through Congress like it’s some kind of substitute legislature. It’s also ridiculous to, as Jackson and Fletcher did in oral argument, assume that the government is the only possible solution to every social ill. Do these hypothetically window-jumping children not have parents? Teachers? Older siblings? Neighbors? Would the social media companies not have an interest in preventing their products from being used to promote death, and wouldn’t that be an easy thing to explain publicly? Apparently, Jackson couldn’t conceive of any other solution to problems like these than government censorship, when our society has handled far bigger problems like war, pandemics, and foreign invasion without government censorship for 250 years! Voters Auditing Government Is Exactly How Our System Should Work Fletcher described it as a “problem” that in this case, “two states and five individuals are trying to use the Article III courts to audit all of the executive branch’s communications with and about social media platforms.” That’s called transparency, and it’s only a problem if the government is trying to escape accountability to voters for its actions. The people have a fundamental right to audit what their government is doing with public positions, institutions, and funds! How do we have government by consent of the governed if the people can have no idea what their government is doing? Under federal laws, all communications like those this lawsuit uncovered are public records. Yet these public records are really hard to get. The executive branch has been effectively nullifying open records laws by absurdly lengthening disclosure times — to as long as 636 days — increasingly forcing citizens to wage expensive lawsuits to get federal agencies to cough up records years beyond the legal deadline. Congress should pass a law forcing the automatic disclosure of all government communications with tech monopolies that don’t concern actual classified information and “national security” designations, which the government expands unlawfully to avoid transparency. No justice should support government secrecy about its speech pressure efforts outside of legitimate national security actions. Government Is So Big, It’s Always Coercive Fletcher’s argument also claimed to draw a line between government persuasion and government coercion. The size and minute harassment powers of our government long ago obliterated any such line, if it ever existed. Federal agencies now have the power to try citizens in non-Article III courts, outside constitutional protections for due process. Citizens can be bankrupted long before they finally get to appeal to a real court. That’s why most of them just do whatever the agencies say, even when it’s clearly unlawful. Federal agencies demand power over almost every facet of life, from puddles in people’s backyards to the temperature of cheese served in a tiny restaurant. If they put a target on any normal citizen’s back, he goes bankrupt after regulatory torture. As Franklin Roosevelt’s “brain trust” planned, government is now the “senior partner” of every business, giving every “request” from government officials automatic coercion power. Federal agencies have six ways from Sunday of getting back at a noncompliant company, from the EEOC to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency to Health and Human Services to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations and more. Use an accurate pronoun? Investigation. Hire “one too many” white guys? Investigation. TikTok legislation going through Congress right now would codify federal power to seize social media companies accused of being owned by foreign interests. Shortly after he acquired X, Elon Musk faced a regulatory shakedown costing him tens of millions, and more on the way. He has money like that, but the rest of us don’t. Speech from a private citizen does not have the threat of violence behind it. Speech from a government official, on the other hand, absolutely does and always has. Government officials have powers that other people don’t, and those powers are easily abused, which is exactly why we have a Constitution. SCOTUS needs to take this crucial context into account, making constitutional protections stronger because the government is far, far outside its constitutional bounds. Big tech companies’ very business model depends on government regulators and can be destroyed — or kneecapped — at the stroke of an activist president’s pen. Or, at least, that’s what the president said when Facebook and Twitter didn’t do what he wanted: Section 230 should “immediately be revoked.” This is a president who claims the executive power to unilaterally rewrite laws, ignore laws, and ignore Supreme Court decisions. It’s a president who issues orders as press releases so they go into effect months before they can even begin to be challenged in court. Constitutionally Protected Speech Isn’t Terrorism If justices buy the administration’s nice-guy pretenses of “concern about terrorism,” and “once in a lifetime pandemic measures,” they didn’t read the briefs in this case and see that is simply a cover for the U.S. government turning counterterrorism tools on its own citizens in an attempt to control election outcomes. This is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to check, and we Americans need our Supreme Court to understand that and act to protect us. Elections mean nothing when the government is secretly keeping voters from talking to each other. The Supreme Court may not be able to return the country to full constitutional government by eradicating the almost entirely unconstitutional administrative state. But it should enforce as many constitutional boundaries as possible on such agencies. That clearly includes prohibiting all of government from outsourcing to allegedly “private” organizations actions that would be illegal for the government to take. That includes not just coercive instructions to social media companies, but also developing social media censorship tools and organizations as cutouts for the rogue security state that is targeting peaceful citizens instead of actual terrorists. Even false speech is not domestic terrorism, and no clearheaded Supreme Court justice looking at the evidence could let the Biden administration weaponize antiterrorism measures to strip law-abiding Americans of our fundamental human rights. Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her ebooks include "Classic Books For Young Children," and "101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation." An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media from Fox News to Ben Shapiro to Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Her traditionally published books include "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books. https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/21/this-country-cannot-afford-a-weak-supreme-court-decision-on-internet-censorship/ Join ➡️ @MartinKulldorf

It's Time To YELL At The U.S. Government Tell the Office for Global Affairs exactly what you really think of the proposed "Pandemic Agreement." Submit your written comments by Monday, January 22, 2024. GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM! James Roguski Share Leave a comment WORLDWIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED “PANDEMIC AGREEMENT” HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW… OFFICIAL DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE HERE EVERYONE ON EARTH is invited to submit your written comments via email to [email protected] before 5pm Eastern time on Monday, January 22, 2024 with the subject line: “Written Comment Re: Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the WHO Pandemic Agreement” The most recent Negotiating Text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (Negotiating Text) can be found here: https://apps.who.int/​gb/​inb/​pdf_​files/​inb7/​A_​INB7_​3-en.pdf Please take the time to copy the comment that you submit and post it in the comment section below… Leave a comment You can take the easy way out, and CLICK HERE to send a pre-written email, but I strongly encourage you to really put in the effort to let the Office for Global Affairs know what you really think! I encourage you to record a video (LIKE THESE) and include a link to your video in your email. FALSE ASSUMPTION #1: The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to answer a series of questions that assume that we want a “Pandemic Agreement” to be negotiated. They assume that we want “rapid creation and equitable deployment of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.” FALSE ASSUMPTION #2: The proposed negotiating text of the “Pandemic Agreement” that was published on October 30, 2023 is already out of date. A new version is being written as we speak and is due to be available in February 2024. The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to comment on what is already an old version of the proposed agreement. THESE ARE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT MUST BE CHALLENGED FEEL FREE TO COPY MY LETTER AND DECLARATION AND EDIT IT TO MAKE IT YOUR OWN: My letter to the Office of Global Affairs: My thoughts are best summarized in this video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/68noiys4ufyP/ and this website: http://ThePeoplesDeclaration.com The Office for Global Affairs MUST HEED the 33,884 comments that were submitted to the World Health Organization in April 2022: https://inb.who.int/home/public-hearings/first-round https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-first-round-public-hearings-written-contributions.xlsx?sfvrsn=275459d6_7 The Office for Global Affairs MUST ALSO HEED the hundreds of video comments submitted to the World Health Organization by INDIVIDUALS in September 2022: https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-public-hearings---video-list-(final).pdf?sfvrsn=242677f2_3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glXnQDeIOf8 The United States government should develop the software for a GLOBALLY AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE interactive forum/database for ALL types of health care practitioners to share their clinical experiences and observations IN REAL TIME WITHOUT CENSORSHIP OF ANY KIND regarding all diseases so that everyone on earth can access the wisdom of absolutely all the health professionals in the world for free. The tens of billions of dollars that might potentially be spent on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response would be much better spent ensuring that safe, potable drinking water and sanitary removal of waste water be provided for everyone on earth. ***** STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS These negotiations are in regards to what is essentially a trade dispute masquerading as a health issue that is beyond the competency of the World Health Organization. Health care is NOT an enumerated authority of the federal government. You have zero lawful authority regarding health. Health care is an issue that must be controlled by the 50 states as directed by the people of each state. These negotiations MUST be terminated immediately. Before any international agreement is to even be considered, a full reckoning of mistakes made, and crimes committed over the past five years MUST occur. No treaty, agreement, framework convention, amendments to the existing International Health Regulations or any other international instrument is needed, nor is one desired. Any agreement in the form of an open-ended "Framework Convention" MUST BE REJECTED. I DO NOT SUPPORT AND I ACTIVELY OPPOSE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL, HOSPITAL, EMERGENCY, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (PHEIC). The search for "pathogens with pandemic potential" and the plan to build a global laboratory network to facilitate genetic sequencing is a thinly veiled disguise for bioweapons research. The use of Midazolam, ventilators, Run-Death-Is-Near, Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, and most other pharmaceutical interventions has been an absolute health and financial disaster for everyone except the pharmaceutical industry. Any discussion of, or any attempt to control or even monitor our unalienable right to free speech must be opposed and destroyed in its entirety. The WHO, the FDA and the CDC are the true source of the “infodemic” and they are the greatest providers of mis, dis and mal information. The mRNA platform and the coercion used to implement it has been such an absolute disaster that those who promoted and implemented it are guilty of crimes against humanity. STOP THE SHOTS! STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS EXIT THE WHO The People's Declaration The People's Declaration Share this link: ThePeoplesDeclaration.com Read full story Additional information: https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/explainer-whos-pandemic-agreement-threatens-national-sovereignty-free-speech-and-life FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Question: If I submitted an email, but then I thought of something else that I wanted to say, can I submit another email? Answer: YES. Question: If I missed the deadline, can I still submit an email after the deadline has passed? Answer: Yes. Here is what the Office for Global Affairs said: “Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.” Federal Register Notice: The United States has expressed support for the development of an international instrument to protect the world from pandemic health threats now and in the future, and in a more rapid and equitable manner. The United States is seeking the following key outcomes in the negotiations: Enhance the capacity of countries around the world to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemic emergencies and provide clear, credible, consistent information to their citizens. Ensure that all countries share data and laboratory samples from emerging outbreaks quickly, safely, and transparently to facilitate response efforts and inform public health decision making regarding effective disease control measures, including the rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments. Support more equitable and timely access to, and delivery of, vaccines, diagnostic tests, treatments, and other mitigation measures to quickly contain outbreaks, reduce illness and death, and minimize impacts on the economic and national security of people around the world. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of State are charged with co-leading the U.S. delegation to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. This Request for Comments procedure is designed to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help inform the U.S. government negotiating position, including new approaches, proposals, or concerns with the current version of the negotiating text. Stakeholders are invited to provide comments on any and all issues raised by the negotiating text. For foreign-based entities, please specify country/ies in which the institution or organization is headquartered; if your institution or organization is a potential provider of pandemic-related products or services, please specify the types of products or services with which you are commonly associated or seeking to develop. All personal identifying information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. To the extent commenters choose to comment on specific provisions of the negotiating text, it is helpful to reference any articles or sub-articles being addressed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kim, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Global Affairs, Office of the Secretary, HHS, Room (639H) Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, (202) 235–3537. Notice And Request For Comments 237KB ∙ PDF file Download https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-12-22/pdf/2023-28341.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/22/2023-28341/notice-and-request-for-comments-on-the-implications-of-access-and-benefit-sharing-abs LEARN MORE… Informed-Dissent.com StopTheGlobalAgenda.com ThePeoplesDeclaration.com ExitTheWHO.org ExitTheWHO.com RejectTheAmendments.com StopTheAmendments.com StopTheWHO.com ScrewTheWHO.com PreventGenocide2030.org MaskCharade.com Under Development… DemandHealthFreedom.com DemandHealthFreedom.org HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com James Roguski The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime. JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive 310-619-3055 All content is free to all readers. All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment Everyone WORLDWIDE can send in their public comments... From James Roguski... Please take these actions ASAP. Submit your public comment, copy this entire text and share this message far and wide before 5pm Eastern on Monday, January 22, 2024. This opportunity for the public to comment is open to everyone in the entire world!! https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/its-time-to-yell-at-the-us-government

Apple Works Hard At Destroying Your Freedoms And We All Pay Happily For it Story Time When it comes to censorship and propaganda, Apple is no stranger. At every turn, they scheme to erode your constitutional rights. While simultaneously profiting from it; they rape your pockets while giving it to you up the literal backside. Keeping it PG-13 for now. And, of course, the media goes along lockstep, go figure. Their angle to tyranny, personalized content at your expense. They already know everything you do on your phone, the locations you travel, the places you attend. So, now, they'll continue to brainwash the masses with ease. It’s best served with the iPhone you paid for but will never own. What they now claim, coercion — the new business model. Don't shoot the messenger folks, just sharing the facts. In recent years, Apple has been actively working to expand its services and diversify its revenue streams beyond hardware sales. To them, customers are serfs prime for exploitation. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever they can push to drive sales and help the government control your behavior is all that matters. Reminds me of a Metallica song, “Nothing else matters.” But at least the song was enjoyable, which I can’t say for Apple’s new business model. I never did like Fascism, but 2024 seems to welcome it with open arms. As the digital media landscape continues to evolve, publishers are constantly seeking new ways to engage audiences and monetize their content. Remember how I always stated, look at words. They have hidden messages to mislead while at the same time expose their agendas. Engage is another term for fear tactics to push compliance. Think COVID on steroids. And one last point. They mention this will have “far-reaching implications for the future of journalism.” A.K.A. more propaganda. They have already destroyed journalism. The end game, remove all human interaction that might push back. But in the land of wokeness, they have nothing to worry about. I have no more words. Well, at least not today. Leave a comment Reference Gregory, Robin. 2023. “Apple Aims to Harness News for AI Training - Bio Prep Watch.” BioPrepWatch (blog). December 23, 2023. https://open.substack.com/pub/walkinverse/p/apple-works-hard-at-destroying-your?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Kyrie Irving On COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: 'Biggest Violations of Human Rights' "Kyrie Irving is speaking out against mandatory COVID-19 vaccine enforcement; calling it 'one of the biggest violations of human rights in history.' The Nets superstar; one of the most well-known celebs who personally opposed getting the jab; took to Twitter to air out his grievances, and he didn't mince his words. Of course, Kyrie only played in 29 games last season; primarily because NYC implemented a rule which prevented Irving from working in the city without the jab. Irving stuck to his principles and refused the shot and the City eventually did away with the controversial measure. Despite public perception, Irving has repeatedly reiterated that he's not anti-vaccine but feels people should be allowed to make their own decisions without coercion& hellip;" ???? Read more: TMZ (https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/20/kyrie-irving-covid-vaccine-mandate-pandemic-human-rights-violations-nba/?adid=social-twa) Follow @G3News on Telegram https://t.me/g3news

The National Football League has the Gorilla balls to make a big deal about Antonio Brown's behavior on the field, while ignoring their Gorilla warfare on players through their allegiance to the Cooties Government Cult, their demands & rituals that consist of forced vaccinations for ordinary people, and constant nasal raping for both Vaccinated and Exempted. Do not get me wrong, Antonio Brown is a nut case. But one thing Antonio Brown didn't want was the Government's Cooties Cure. Seems like Antonio Brown was not convinced of the Government's Cultic Cooties Cure Propaganda Machine. It is why he got himself a fake Cooties Prevention Shot Passport and because of this he was suspended for 3 weeks by the NFL Cultist. Antonio Brown gets the Cooties Cure and goes absolutely insane on Sunday in the middle of the game after his return from NFL Cooties Violation Policies and Illegal Measures. He starts to strip in the field like a Lunatic and leaves the stadium waving at the Jets crowd. An already Crazy Lunatic Antonio Brown, who we know has had problems off the field, completely lost his mind after the Shot. I don't blame him as much as I blame the NFL for this and their violation of Federal laws and human rights to choose what they want to put in their bodies free of coercion, harassment and retaliatory illegal practices. https://youtu.be/Tv8CuylyAvo

I have great news for fellow Floridians and for those fighting for their rights to practice their religion free from coercion and discrimination. The State Legislator pulled the hears of abusive Employers such as the University of Miami and their incompetent Human Resource Departments, and passed a stricter law, not allowing Employers to inquire into the veracity of an Employees religious beliefs. I've attached this letter so all of you can see it. This is the letter we need to provide our Employers going forward which notifies them of our legal and federal exemption. Employers by Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are entitled to a limited inquiry into the facts of whether an employee's beliefs are sincere or not. An example of this is an Employer asks the employee what is the conflict between your religious beliefs and taking the Kuddies prevention shot? The Employee responds I have an immune system given by God and I am not permitted to alter it. The Employer says thank you and that's it, the Employer's question has been addressed. Now the Employer is entitled to reasonably accommodate the employee. But that is not what was happening in Florida nor in many other States. Employers were asking intrusive Questions like, who is your religious leader? We need a letter from your religious leader or congregation. Have you taken other shots before? Have you taken Aspirin or Pepto Bismal since you where 18 years of age? None of those things have anything to do with your sincerely held religious beliefs and on top that violates Federal Laws that prohibits an Employer from requesting excessive and corroborating evidence calling it harassment and retaliation. It is clear from Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act that religious beliefs do not have to be comprehensible nor consistent. You can hold religious beliefs that no one in your congregation recognizes and they are still valid as stated in Title 7. Those stupid questions about you having taken shots in the past, or certain medications that have Chemicals that are similar or the same as the Kuddies prevention shot are irrelevant and would be thrown out in Court. What you did and believed in the past has nothing to do with what you do and believed now. Precisely because of shady law firms teaching employers through webinars about skirting the law and how to deny employees their accommodations through intrusive questioning, is the reason why a State Law has been passed here in Florida that does not allow Employers to inquire into the veracity of an Employees religious beliefs. Employers were harassing employees and retaliating against them.

U.M attempted to put me on leave without pay because I did not consent to their illegal policies that violate my sincerely held religious beliefs, even after a charge i have against them for religious discrimination. The five days I was on leave without pay were reversed in favor of leave with pay which is legal. They have recently reversed their Policies because of the legal issues that entails and are now asking people as myself to submit another exemption letter. Below is a letter I wrote and am still working on. Let me know what you guys think so far????? Hope this help's people who are going through similar issues as I with their Employers. December 6, 2021 University of Miami Payroll Office P.O. Box 248106 Coral Gables, FL 33124 United States of America Dear Human Resources Department I have a Legal and Federal Exemption protected by Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I am hereby notifying you as required by law once again, that there is a conflict between your measures, policies and protocols, and my sincerely held religious beliefs.  Your policies, measures and protocols include but aren't limited to, forceful mass vaccinations of employees and (testing for those who aren't vaccinated), via threats of discriminating in respect to employees compensation and/or termination even if an Employee belongs to a protected class for having sincerely held religious beliefs that do not permit him, or her to participate in these things. The Eternal our Creator has given humanity an immune system, and my sincerely held religious belief is that altering the immune system he has given us to fight disease is sinful. Doing otherwise would put me in a situation where I would need to compromise my relationship with my God and Saviour in favor of honoring the wishes of men which is something I cannot do, and it is also something federal law protects me from. Federal Law protects those with sincerely held religious beliefs from having to choose between their religion and their job. Here are examples from the Torah: Exodus 23:25 You shall serve the Lord your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you. I serve him and trust that he is the one that will bless my bread and water, and that he is the one that takes sickness away from amongst us, not men. Exodus 15:26. Saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, your healer.” Read the above carefully please Human Resources Department. If you diligently listen to the Eternal's voice, and do what is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all of his statutes. None of the diseases that clobbered the Egyptians will he put on you. Sars-Cov 2, and all of its variants exist because of disobedience towards our creator. Vaccines are not a fix to your sin problems, on the contrary, getting vaccinated actually shows that you don't trust the Eternal God to keep you from disease as he promised, nor do you trust him to be your healer. As for weekly testing, my sincerely held religious beliefs do not permit me to participate in deception, such as agreeing to be sick and needing to test, when I am not sick. The Torah clearly condemns deception! Coercion is also against my sincerely held religious beliefs. Those as I, with sincerely held religious beliefs, are being coerced into forceful testing even if it compromises our religious principles in the name of Policies, Protocols, Measures and Requirements which none have any legal or binding power. No business can create rules, laws or mandates that violate federal laws. A business whether it is private, or public cannot require for example all male workers to get a vasectomy, or everyone to walk in naked in the premises because they need to be 100% certain that people aren't hiding or carrying drugs. No business private or public can have Policies that Requires them not to hire Muslims because they feel all Muslims are Terrorist. No business can require an Orthodox Jewish Man to remove his Kippah before entering the premise, nor a Muslim to remove his Turban. No business can require a Torah Observant man into getting tested when that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. Daniel Chapter 3 shows that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego preferred death rather than honoring the King's requirement of Worshiping the Image of Gold. Shadrach Meshach and Abednego had to choose between their God and the King's Mandates which were law. They chose their God and that was their sincerely held religious beliefs! In a similar matter, we who know that vaccines and coerced weekly testing violate our sincerely held religious beliefs, will always choose our Creator over those Rules. It is also against my sincerely held religious beliefs to test weekly because of the foreign matters the testing devices have that enter the body. Knowing this fact, I am not allowed to tempt the Eternal and do something I know displeases him and it is toxic to the body and soul he has given me. Deuteronomy 6:16 You shall not tempt the Lord your God, as you tempted him in Massah Signature:

Economic freedom is contingent upon an #economy that transacts using honest money that’s free from coercion. That's not what is being proposed. #CBDC